|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{sex}}
| |
| {{Essay}}
| |
| =Simple Summary=
| |
| [[File:CADO1.png|thumb|Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger]]
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Abstract==
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger NiggerNigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ==2. Theoretical Approaches to Sexual Relations between Humans and Non-humans===
| |
| Sexual practices with animals have not been a key focus of attention within the social sciences in general, and anthropology in particular. Perspectives on sexuality have been profoundly influenced by biological, medical, and psychological discourses, but also by the moral prejudices and religious beliefs of the researchers themselves.
| |
|
| |
| Sexuality has been interpreted in terms of reproduction, without taking into account other meanings and significances<ref name=":0">Kinsey A.C., Pomeroy W.B., Martin C.E. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. WB Saunders; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 1948. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Sexual+Behavior+in+the+Human+Male&author=A.C.+Kinsey&author=W.B.+Pomeroy&author=C.E.+Martin&publication_year=1948& Google Scholar]]</ref>. If this concealment has been evident in non-human interspecies relations, the silence surrounding human involvement in such practices is hardly surprising. Human-animal sexual practices not only call into question the model of heteronormativity, but also overstep the boundary of what is considered strictly human <ref>Vincent J. Nature adamique et nature déchue: Une culture qui ne dit pas son nom. In: Bartholeyns G., Dittmar P.O., Golsenne T., Har-Peled M., Jolivet V., editors. Adam et l’astragale: Essais d’anthropologie et d’histoire sur les Limites de L’humain. Editions de la MSH; Paris, France: 2009. pp. 137–152. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Adam+et+l%E2%80%99astragale:+Essais+d%E2%80%99anthropologie+et+d%E2%80%99histoire+sur+les+Limites+de+L%E2%80%99humain&author=J.+Vincent&publication_year=2009& Google Scholar]]</ref>. Shedding light on these ‘sexual relations’ ‘de-sacralises’ [[human sexuality]]. It harks back to an animality denied in anthropocentric visions, which represent humans as qualitatively different from other animals. It is no coincidence that these types of practices are recognised firstly in those considered ‘less’ human. Evidence of human-animal sexual relations has been used to stake out the boundary between ‘barbarians’ and ‘civilised’ peoples. Chroniclers who recounted processes of ‘colonisation’ regularly described all the practices that legitimised domination of the animalised ‘other’, a being that must be taught, dominated, and colonised<ref>Amodio E. El detestable pecado nefando: Diversidad sexual y control inquisitorial en Venezuela durante el Siglo XVIII. Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos. 2012 doi: 10.4000/nuevomundo.63177. [[https://doi.org/10.4000%2Fnuevomundo.63177 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Nuevo+Mundo+Mundos+Nuevos&title=El+detestable+pecado+nefando:+Diversidad+sexual+y+control+inquisitorial+en+Venezuela+durante+el+Siglo+XVIII&author=E.+Amodio&publication_year=2012&doi=10.4000/nuevomundo.63177& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Bazant M. Bestialismo: El delito nefando, 1800-1856. In: Staples A., Gonzalbo Aizpuru P., editors. Historia de la vida cotidiana en México, v. 4: Bienes y vivencias, el siglo XIX. Fondo de Cultura Económica; México, D. F., México: 2002. pp. 429–462. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Historia+de+la+vida+cotidiana+en+M%C3%A9xico,+v.+4:+Bienes+y+vivencias,+el+siglo+XIX&author=M.+Bazant&publication_year=2002& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Vega Umbasia L.A. Pecado y delito en la colonia: La bestialidad como una forma de contravención sexual (1740–1808) Instituto Colombiano de la Cultura Hispánica; Bogotá, Colombia: 1994. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Pecado+y+delito+en+la+colonia:+La+bestialidad+como+una+forma+de+contravenci%C3%B3n+sexual+(1740%E2%80%931808)&author=L.A.+Vega+Umbasia&publication_year=1994& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Although awareness of bestiality reinforced the image of the non-Western savage, from the 19th century onwards, it was also used to mark out internal ‘primitives’, members of the population who did not meet the standards of urban life: peasants. In Kinsey’s emblematic work<ref name=":0" /> on sexuality, zoophilia in America was firmly situated in the rural world. For this author, the rural context helped to explain zoophilia, since it is an environment with strong sexual control and little access to women. At no time was it suggested that it might be a voluntary option or a preference: contact with animals was considered as a replacement of sexual relations with women <ref name=":0" />. This same interpretation can be found in research about bestiality in Sweden during the modern age <ref name=":4">Liliequist J. Peasants against nature: Crossing the boundaries between man and animal in seventeenth-and eighteenth-century Sweden. J. Hist. Sex. 1991;1:393–423. [[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11622768 PubMed]] [Google Scholar]</ref><ref name=":5">Rydstrom J. Sinners and Citizens: Bestiality and Homosexuality in Sweden, 1880–1950. University Chicago Press; Chicago, IL, USA: 2003. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Sinners+and+Citizens:+Bestiality+and+Homosexuality+in+Sweden,+1880%E2%80%931950&author=J.+Rydstrom&publication_year=2003& Google Scholar]]</ref>. As noted by Miletski<ref>Miletski H. Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia. East-West Publishing; Bethesda, MD, USA: 2002. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Understanding+Bestiality+and+Zoophilia&author=H.+Miletski&publication_year=2002& Google Scholar]]</ref>, there is a widespread stereotype about zoophilia as the practice of poor and ignorant peasant men. However, what happens in the case of civilised urban societies?out history, from pre-historic times to the present day <ref name=":6">Dekkers M. Deares Pet on Bestiality. Verso; London, UK: 1994. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Deares+Pet+on+Bestiality&author=M.+Dekkers&publication_year=1994& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref name=":7">Miletski H. Is zoophilia a sexual orientation? A study. Anthrozoos. 2005;18:82–97. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Anthrozoos&title=Is+zoophilia+a+sexual+orientation?+A+study&author=H.+Miletski&volume=18&publication_year=2005&pages=82-97& Google Scholar]]</ref>. However, the reasons for rejecting sexuality with animals are not universal and have not remained constant over time.
| |
|
| |
| In some cases, such relations have been condemned by law, and also by religion. Hence, Leviticus (20:15) states: “if a man lieth with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.” <ref>Beirne P. Confronting Animal Abuse: Law, Criminology, and Human-animal Relationships. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Lanham, MD, USA: 2009. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Confronting+Animal+Abuse:+Law,+Criminology,+and+Human-animal+Relationships&author=P.+Beirne&publication_year=2009& Google Scholar]]</ref>. In Europe, until the late 19th century, bestiality was akin to [[sodomy]]. These terms had a clear moral component and were penalised because they were considered a sin and, therefore, in that context, a crime. However, from the 19th century onwards, with the development of psychiatry, there was an important shift in the way these kinds of relations were treated. ‘Perversion’ and ‘immorality’ were transferred from the practice to the person. Behaviours were essentialised and linked to ‘sick’ bodies. As signalled by Foucault <ref name=":2">Foucault M. Histoire de la sexualité, 1: La volonté de savoir. Éditions Gallimard; Paris, France: 1976. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Histoire+de+la+sexualit%C3%A9,+1:+La+volont%C3%A9+de+savoir&author=M.+Foucault&publication_year=1976& Google Scholar]]</ref>, throughout the 19th century, medicine offered the bourgeoisie new ways of legitimising social control over dissidents in general and over sexual dissidents in particular. This process occurred not only with regard to sexuality with animals but also in other non-reproductive sexualities (same sex relations, masturbation, fetishism.)<ref name=":1">Rubin G. Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In: Vance C.S., editor. Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Routledge & K. Paul; Boston, MA, USA: 1984. pp. 267–319. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Pleasure+and+Danger:+Exploring+Female+Sexuality&author=G.+Rubin&publication_year=1984& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref name=":2" /><ref>Weeks J. Sexuality and Its Discontents: Meanings, Myths, and Modern Sexualities. Routledge; London, UK: 1985. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Sexuality+and+Its+Discontents:+Meanings,+Myths,+and+Modern+Sexualities&author=J.+Weeks&publication_year=1985& Google Scholar]]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Medicine and psychiatry brought to light countless peripheral sexualities that were stigmatised as illnesses<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />. In 1886, the German psychiatrist Krafft-Ebing drew a distinction between bestiality and [[zooerasty]] or zoophilia. He used the term bestiality for practices aimed exclusively at satisfying sexual desire through the use of other species. Bestiality is explained either by psychopathological conditions or by ‘moral baseness’: excessive sexual desire or the lack of opportunities to satisfy this desire ‘naturally’. The terms zooerasty or zoophilia, on the other hand, refer to pathological behaviours that imply sexual and emotional attraction to animals<ref name=":8">Krafft-Ebing R. Psychopathia Sexualis. A. Davis Campany Publishers; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 1894. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Psychopathia+Sexualis&author=R.+Krafft-Ebing&publication_year=1894& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref>.
| |
|
| |
| However, there is another group of cases falling well within the category of bestiality, in which decidedly a pathological basis exists, indicated by heavy taint, constitutional neuroses, impotence for the normal act, impulsive manner of performing the unnatural act.
| |
|
| |
| Following this distinction, Ellis<ref name=":9">Ellis H. Studies in the Psychology of Sex: Erotic Symbolism, the Mechanism of the Detumescence the Psychic State in Pregnancy. FA Davis; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 1923. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Studies+in+the+Psychology+of+Sex:+Erotic+Symbolism,+the+Mechanism+of+the+Detumescence+the+Psychic+State+in+Pregnancy&author=H.+Ellis&publication_year=1923& Google Scholar]]</ref> stated that bestiality would imply that “the individual is fairly normal, but belongs to a low grade of culture”. Zoophilia, on the other hand, would apply to “the other in which he may belong to a more refined social class, but is affected by a deep degree of degeneration”.
| |
|
| |
| The term zoophilia gradually gained ground over the label of bestiality. Zoophilia was included in the [[Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)]] compiled by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) <ref>American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5<sup>®</sup>) American Psychiatric Publishing; Washington, DC, USA: 2013. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Diagnostic+and+Statistical+Manual+of+Mental+Disorders+(DSM-5%C2%AE)&publication_year=2013& Google Scholar]]</ref> as a [[paraphilia]]. Zoophilia appears for the first time as a paraphilia in the 3rd edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) in 1980. In the revised 3rd edition of the DSM-III-R (APA, Washington, D.C., USA, 1987) it is classified as Paraphilia NOS or Paraphilia (Not Otherwise Specified) <ref>Navarro J.C., Tewksbury R. Bestiality: An overview and analytic discussion. Sociol. Compass. 2015;9:864–875. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12306. [[https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fsoc4.12306 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Sociol.+Compass.&title=Bestiality:+An+overview+and+analytic+discussion&author=J.C.+Navarro&author=R.+Tewksbury&volume=9&publication_year=2015&pages=864-875&doi=10.1111/soc4.12306& Google Scholar]]</ref>.
| |
|
| |
| The pathologisation of zoophilia implies that any treatment of this issue has been marked fundamentally by a medical/psychiatric orientation <ref>Cerrone G.H. Zoophilia in a rural population: Two case studies. J. Rural Community Psychol. 1991;12:29–39. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J.+Rural+Community+Psychol.&title=Zoophilia+in+a+rural+population:+Two+case+studies&author=G.H.+Cerrone&volume=12&publication_year=1991&pages=29-39& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Alvarez W.A., Freinhar J.P. A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff. Int. J. Psychosom. 1991;38:45–47. [[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1778686 PubMed]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Int.+J.+Psychosom.&title=A+prevalence+study+of+bestiality+(zoophilia)+in+psychiatric+in-patients,+medical+in-patients,+and+psychiatric+staff&author=W.A.+Alvarez&author=J.P.+Freinhar&volume=38&publication_year=1991&pages=45-47&pmid=1778686& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Beetz A.M. Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals. Shaker Verlag; Aachen, Germany: 2002. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Love,+Violence,+and+Sexuality+in+Relationships+between+Humans+and+Animals&author=A.M.+Beetz&publication_year=2002& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref><ref>Miletski H. Zoophilia: Implications for therapy. J. Sex. Educ. Ther. 2001;26:85–89. doi: 10.1080/01614576.2001.11074387. [[https://doi.org/10.1080%2F01614576.2001.11074387 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J.+Sex.+Educ.+Ther.&title=Zoophilia:+Implications+for+therapy&author=H.+Miletski&volume=26&publication_year=2001&pages=85-89&doi=10.1080/01614576.2001.11074387& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>eretti P.O., Rowan M. Variables associated with male and female chronic zoophilia. Soc. Behav. Pers. 1982;10:83–87. doi: 10.2224/sbp.1982.10.1.83. [[https://doi.org/10.2224%2Fsbp.1982.10.1.83 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Soc.+Behav.+Pers.&title=Variables+associated+with+male+and+female+chronic+zoophilia&author=P.O.+Peretti&author=M.+Rowan&volume=10&publication_year=1982&pages=83-87&doi=10.2224/sbp.1982.10.1.83& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Earls C.M., Lalumière M.L. A case study of preferential bestiality. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2009;38:605–609. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9285-x. [[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18157625 PubMed]] [[https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10508-007-9285-x CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Arch.+Sex.+Behav.&title=A+case+study+of+preferential+bestiality&author=C.M.+Earls&author=M.L.+Lalumi%C3%A8re&volume=38&publication_year=2009&pages=605-609&pmid=18157625&doi=10.1007/s10508-007-9285-x& Google Scholar]]
| |
|
| |
| </ref>. As this discourse links zoophilia to pathology, the literature developed has analysed the connections between these practices and a series of aggressive and violent behaviours within the field of forensic and criminological studies<ref>Aggrawal A. A new classification of zoophilia. J. Forensic. Leg. Med. 2011;18:73–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2011.01.004. [[https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jflm.2011.01.004 PubMed]] [[https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jflm.2011.01.004 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J.+Forensic.+Leg.+Med.&title=A+new+classification+of+zoophilia&author=A.+Aggrawal&volume=18&publication_year=2011&pages=73-78&pmid=21315301&doi=10.1016/j.jflm.2011.01.004& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>scione F.R. Bestiality: Petting, "humane rape," sexual assault, and the enigma of sexual interactions between humans and non-human animals. In: Beetz A.M., Podberscek A.L., editors. Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals. Purdue University Press; West Lafayette, IN, USA: 2005. pp. 120–129. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Bestiality+and+Zoophilia:+Sexual+Relations+with+Animals&author=F.R.+Ascione&publication_year=2005& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Duffield G., Hassiotis A., Vizard E. Zoophilia in young sexual abusers. J. Forensic Psychiatry. 1998;9:294–304. doi: 10.1080/09585189808402198. [[https://doi.org/10.1080%2F09585189808402198 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J.+Forensic+Psychiatry&title=Zoophilia+in+young+sexual+abusers&author=G.+Duffield&author=A.+Hassiotis&author=E.+Vizard&volume=9&publication_year=1998&pages=294-304&doi=10.1080/09585189808402198& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref><ref>Flynn C.P. Animal abuse in childhood and later support for interpersonal violence in families. Soc. Anim. 1999;7:161–172. doi: 10.1163/156853099X00059. [[https://doi.org/10.1163%2F156853099X00059 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Soc.+Anim.&title=Animal+abuse+in+childhood+and+later+support+for+interpersonal+violence+in+families&author=C.P.+Flynn&volume=7&publication_year=1999&pages=161-172&doi=10.1163/156853099X00059& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Hensley C., Tallichet S.E., Singer S.D. Exploring the possible link between childhood and adolescent bestiality and interpersonal violence. J. Interpers. Violence. 2006;21:910–923. doi: 10.1177/0886260506288937. [[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16731991 PubMed]] [[https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0886260506288937 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J.+Interpers.+Violence&title=Exploring+the+possible+link+between+childhood+and+adolescent+bestiality+and+interpersonal+violence&author=C.+Hensley&author=S.E.+Tallichet&author=S.D.+Singer&volume=21&publication_year=2006&pages=910-923&pmid=16731991&doi=10.1177/0886260506288937& Google Scholar]]</ref>.
| |
|
| |
| Far less research has examined zoophilia from the perspective of the social sciences. One important study in terms of its repercussions was that of Midas Dekkers <ref name=":6" />, which analyses sexual relations with animals in psychology, law, literature, art, and advertising. The frequent artistic depictions of sexual practices between humans and non-human animals at different points in history and across different cultures have sparked particular interest: one well-known example is the sculptures in the Hindu-Jain temples of Khajuraho in India (10th–11th centuries), which, together with a variety of sexual behaviours, represent copulation between people and animals<ref>garwal U. Khajurāho Sculptures and Their Significance. Chand & Company; New Delhi, India: 1964. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Khajur%C4%81ho+Sculptures+and+Their+Significance&author=U.+Agarwal&publication_year=1964& Google Scholar]]</ref> <ref>Rabe M. Sexual Imagery on the Phantasmagorical Castles at Khajuraho. [(accessed on 1 September 2019)];Int. J. Tantric Stud. 1996 2 Available online: <nowiki>http://asiatica.org/ijts/vol2_no2/sexual-imagery-phantasmagorical-castles-khajuraho/</nowiki> [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Int.+J.+Tantric+Stud.&title=Sexual+Imagery+on+the+Phantasmagorical+Castles+at+Khajuraho&author=M.+Rabe&volume=2&publication_year=1996& Google Scholar]]</ref>. Some historical studies have also tackled bestiality, particularly through the analysis of legal proceedings against those accused of such practices<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" /><ref>Salisbury J.E. Bestiality in the middle ages. In: Salisbury J.E., editor. Sex in the Middle Ages: A Book of Essays. Garland; London, UK: 1991. pp. 173–186. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Sex+in+the+Middle+Ages:+A+Book+of+Essays&author=J.E.+Salisbury&publication_year=1991& Google Schola]r]</ref>. Educational historical studies have highlighted the widespread incidence of these practices in different contexts and historical periods. However, these are still largely a mere anecdotal compilation of examples, which do little to further our understanding of their social significance and meaning<ref>Beetz A.M. Bestiality/zoophilia: A scarcely investigated phenomenon between crime, paraphilia, and love. J. Forensic. Psychol. Pract. 2004;4:1–36. doi: 10.1300/J158v04n02_01. [[https://doi.org/10.1300%2FJ158v04n02_01 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J.+Forensic.+Psychol.+Pract.&title=Bestiality/zoophilia:+A+scarcely+investigated+phenomenon+between+crime,+paraphilia,+and+love&author=A.M.+Beetz&volume=4&publication_year=2004&pages=1-36&doi=10.1300/J158v04n02_01& Google Scholar]]</ref>.
| |
|
| |
| Fragmented and decontextualised data, methodological difficulties in accessing informants that are not marked by exclusion (as is the case in criminological studies), together with the moral prejudices of the researchers themselves, and the prevalence of the medicalised vision are the [[Portal:Main|main]] reasons behind the lack of interest shown by sociology and anthropology in this issue. However, this has begun to change in recent years on account of the increasing visibility of these sexual practices on the Internet.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ===3. Contributions of Anthropology and Sociology in Studies about Zoophilia===
| |
| Anthropological research on sexual relations between animals and humans is scarce<ref>Davis D.L., Whitten R.G. The cross-cultural study of human sexuality. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1987;16:69–98. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.16.100187.000441. [[https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.an.16.100187.000441 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Annu.+Rev.+Anthropol.&title=The+cross-cultural+study+of+human+sexuality&author=D.L.+Davis&author=R.G.+Whitten&volume=16&publication_year=1987&pages=69-98&doi=10.1146/annurev.an.16.100187.000441& Google Scholar]]
| |
|
| |
| </ref>. Ethnographic studies merely contain anecdotal references<ref name=":10">Malinowski B. La vidad sexual de los salvajes del noroeste de la Melanesia. Morata; Madrid, Spain: 1975. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=La+vidad+sexual+de+los+salvajes+del+noroeste+de+la+Melanesia&author=B.+Malinowski&publication_year=1975& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Beidelman T.O. Kaguru justice and the concept of legal fictions. J. Afr. Law. 1961;5:5–20. doi: 10.1017/S0021855300002928. [[https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0021855300002928 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J.+Afr.+Law.&title=Kaguru+justice+and+the+concept+of+legal+fictions&author=T.O.+Beidelman&volume=5&publication_year=1961&pages=5-20&doi=10.1017/S0021855300002928& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Chaplin J.H. A report on sexual behavior: Six case histories from Northern Rhodesia. Adv. Sex Res. 1963;1:13–26. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Adv.+Sex+Res.&title=A+report+on+sexual+behavior:+Six+case+histories+from+Northern+Rhodesia&author=J.H.+Chaplin&volume=1&publication_year=1963&pages=13-26& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Delaney C. The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society. University of California Press; Berkeley, CA, USA: 1991. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The+Seed+and+the+Soil:+Gender+and+Cosmology+in+Turkish+Village+Society&author=C.+Delaney&publication_year=1991& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref name=":11">Evans-Pritchard E. Nuer Religion. Oxford University Press; Glasgow, UK: 1956. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Nuer+Religion&author=E.+Evans-Pritchard&publication_year=1956& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Williams T.R. Cultural structuring of tactile experience in a Borneo society. Am. Anthropol. 1966;68:27–39. doi: 10.1525/aa.1966.68.1.02a00030. [[https://doi.org/10.1525%2Faa.1966.68.1.02a00030 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Am.+Anthropol.&title=Cultural+structuring+of+tactile+experience+in+a+Borneo+society&author=T.R.+Williams&volume=68&publication_year=1966&pages=27-39&doi=10.1525/aa.1966.68.1.02a00030& Google Scholar]]</ref>. The starting premise in such approaches is that zoophilia is a deviation from normative sexuality, a fact that is questioned in other works that approach this phenomenon from a perspective that is not necessarily pathologising.
| |
|
| |
| In his groundbreaking work on the anthropology of sexuality, The Sexual Life of Savages in the North West of Melanesia <ref name=":10" />, Malinowski devotes barely one page to such practices. He includes them within the category of contemptible sexualities (along with exhibitionism, homosexuality, masturbation, anal and oral sex), substitutes for the adequate exercising of sexual impulse. He includes just one case of sexual relations between a man and a dog, a behaviour that is seen as ridiculous and classed as disgusting and unsatisfactory <ref name=":10" />. He also notes that in the past, this behaviour was punished more severely. The person involved was accused of witchcraft and the animal was sacrificed. He is quick to compare bestiality with ‘inversion’, affirming that the Trobiand people consider it even more absurd.
| |
|
| |
| Even Evans-Pritchard does not tackle this issue, in spite of his interest in sexuality and his studies of societies such as the Zande and the Nuer, in which relations between animals and humans are very close. His work contains just one footnote about a case involving a cow. The old man involved, overcome by shame and regret, sacrificed the animal and also cut his own finger off with a spear as a way of atoning<ref name=":11" />.
| |
|
| |
| Among the research that has dealt with zoophilia more precisely is the study conducted by Devereux <ref name=":12">Devereux G. Mohave zoophilia. Samiksha J. Indian Psychoanalytic. Soc. 1948;2:227–245. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Samiksha+J.+Indian+Psychoanalytic.+Soc.&title=Mohave+zoophilia&author=G.+Devereux&volume=2&publication_year=1948&pages=227-245& Google Scholar]]</ref> on the Mohaves of North America, and LeVine’s <ref name=":13">LeVine R.A. Gusii sex offenses: A study in social control. Am. Anthropol. 1959;61:965–990. doi: 10.1525/aa.1959.61.6.02a00050. [[https://doi.org/10.1525%2Faa.1959.61.6.02a00050 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Am.+Anthropol.&title=Gusii+sex+offenses:+A+study+in+social+control&author=R.A.+LeVine&volume=61&publication_year=1959&pages=965-990&doi=10.1525/aa.1959.61.6.02a00050& Google Scholar]]</ref> work on the Kisii people of Kenya. More recently, Marie-Christine Anest <ref name=":14">Anest M.C. Zoophilie, Homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Grèce contemporaine. Editions L’Harmattan; Paris, France: 1994. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Zoophilie,+Homosexualite,+rites+de+passage+et+initiation+masculine+dans+la+Gr%C3%A8ce+contemporaine&author=M.C.+Anest&publication_year=1994& Google Scholar]]</ref> has investigated zoophilia in Cyprus and Crete. As noted by Devereux <ref name=":12" />, relationships with animals are not the same in all cultures, and they are not identical with all species. This author explains that, for the Mohaves of North America, men and animals were not originally differentiated <ref name=":12" />. Ellis<ref name=":9" /> holds the same opinion, considering that these kinds of practices are favoured among ‘primitive’ peoples on account of their conception of nature, in which there are no great barriers between humans and animals. The same would hold true among peasants on account of their familiarity with their beasts.
| |
|
| |
| Although some authors highlight familiarity and proximity with animals when explaining human-animal sexual practices, others show how ‘closeness’ acts inversely. Ruelland <ref>Anest M.C. Zoophilie, Homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Grèce contemporaine. Editions L’Harmattan; Paris, France: 1994. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Zoophilie,+Homosexualite,+rites+de+passage+et+initiation+masculine+dans+la+Gr%C3%A8ce+contemporaine&author=M.C.+Anest&publication_year=1994& Google Scholar]]</ref> , for example, when examining the Tupuri people, notes that zoophilia is akin to incest. Proximity to certain animals on occasions translates into rejection of sexual contact, depending on the significance of the animal, but also on other variables, which are equally fundamental when it comes to understanding how, with which species and in which contexts sexual relations are permitted or not.
| |
|
| |
| Not all species have the same worth or are considered appropriate for sexual relations. For Devereux, the Mohaves and Yuma people only conceive of sexual relations with mares, or female donkeys, cows, or calves. In the cases analysed in Turkey, sex is only permitted with animals that are not eaten, such as dogs and donkeys<ref>Dundes A., Leach J.W., Özkök B. The strategy of Turkish boys’ verbal dueling rhymes. J. Am. Folklore. 1970;83:325–349. doi: 10.2307/538809. [[https://doi.org/10.2307%2F538809 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J.+Am.+Folklore&title=The+strategy+of+Turkish+boys%E2%80%99+verbal+dueling+rhymes&author=A.+Dundes&author=J.W.+Leach&author=B.+%C3%96zk%C3%B6k&volume=83&publication_year=1970&pages=325-349&doi=10.2307/538809& Google Scholar]]</ref> <ref name=":15">Laugrand F., Oosten J. Canicide and healing. The position of the dog in the Inuit cultures of the Canadian Arctic. Anthropos. 2002;97:89–105. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Anthropos&title=Canicide+and+healing.+The+position+of+the+dog+in+the+Inuit+cultures+of+the+Canadian+Arctic&author=F.+Laugrand&author=J.+Oosten&volume=97&publication_year=2002&pages=89-105& Google Scholar]]</ref>. Furthermore, it is not understood as an appropriate sexuality for all individuals, nor is it admissible under all circumstances. Zoophilia often reproduces heteronormative rules, and relations with animals of the same sex are not accepted, as is the case in the north of Costa Rica<ref name=":16">Cáceres-Feria R. Diversidad sexual: Contexto locales, discursos globales. In: Valcuende del Río J.M., Marco Macarro M.J., Alarcón D., editors. Estudios sobre diversidad sexual en Iberoamérica. Aconcagua Libros; Sevilla, Spain: 2013. pp. 15–25. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Estudios+sobre+diversidad+sexual+en+Iberoam%C3%A9rica&author=R.+C%C3%A1ceres-Feria&publication_year=2013& Google Scholar]] </ref>.
| |
|
| |
| The research conducted in the areas of zoophilia and bestiality notes that variables such as age, gender, and social position influence the acceptability of such sexual practices. References to cases of zoophilia and bestiality most commonly focus on men. This is hardly surprising, since this androcentric vision is widespread in studies about sexuality. However, we know that women in these ‘traditional’ contexts have also engaged in such practices. Female bestiality is usually associated with animals linked to the domestic sphere, such as dogs<ref name=":8" /><ref>Lucenay A. Bestialismo. Editorial Fénix; Madrid, Spain: 1933. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Bestialismo&author=A.+Lucenay&publication_year=1933& Google Scholar]]</ref> <ref>Matté A.K. Prazeres velados e silêncios suspirados: Sexualidade e contravenções na região colonial italiana, 1920–1950. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul; Portoalegre, RS, Brasil: 2008. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Prazeres+velados+e+sil%C3%AAncios+suspirados:+Sexualidade+e+contraven%C3%A7%C3%B5es+na+regi%C3%A3o+colonial+italiana,+1920%E2%80%931950&author=A.K.+Matt%C3%A9&publication_year=2008& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref>; it is no coincidence, therefore, that in many cultures, a man engaging in sexual conduct with female dogs is considered unthinkable or grotesque <ref name=":12" />. In the north of Costa Rica, whereas sexuality with female pigs or donkeys is seen with a degree of normality, sexual relations between teenage boys and female dogs are rejected and ridiculed<ref name=":16" />. In Greece, dogs are prohibited for such practices, considered impure, and there is fear of the diseases that might be contracted<ref name=":14" />. Among the Inuit peoples, sexual relations with dogs were found among men and women alike. Male sexuality with female dogs was regulated: it had to be outdoors, never inside the home, and the animal had to be in [[heat]] <ref name=":15" />.
| |
|
| |
| As we see through these cases, each social context defines its own rules in relation to the species permitted for sexual relations. In contrast to the vision that presents sexuality in general, and sexuality with animals in particular, as an individual reality, research into this phenomenon shows that
| |
